Skip to content

· Private foundation

Feather River Community Fund

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$72k
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it funds
0190% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2025.

Arts & Culture$66kEnvironment$34kFood & Nutrition$24kCommunity Improvement$22kAnimals$18kHuman Services$14kYouth Development$10kPublic Safety & Disaster$9kOther$0
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k8 grants · $42k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $30k
$5,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$50k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Crescent Hotel$10,000
Plumas Audubon Society$10,000
Plumas Performing Arts$10,000
Plumas Coummunity Radio$9,690
Indian Valley Food Pantry$5,000
Sierra Institute$5,000
Individual grant recipient$5,000
Sierra buttes Trails Council$5,000
Individual grant recipient$4,000
Dixie Fire Canopy Project$4,000
Individual grant recipient$4,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY22–25, $13k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Plumas Audubon Society: $10k → 13%Plumas Rural Services: $3k → 13%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

64%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$152k · 13 repeat orgs$84k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +21% since the first grant, against -1% for those funded once.

13 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
13

Total granted

$152k
$41k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+21%
-1%

Still filing today

31%
31%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 40% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $43k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesCommunity ImprovementArts & CultureEnvironmentHealthFood & NutritionOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • PS
    PLUMAS SUN
    2× · 2023–2024 · $20k
  • IV
    Indian Valley Innovation Hub
    2× · 2023–2024 · $20k
  • PC
    PLUMAS COMMUNITY RADIO A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION
    2× · 2024–2025 · $19k · revenue +21%

Funded once

  • DI
    Dawn Institute
    one grant, 2024 · $10k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $10k
  • S
    SPOT
    one grant, 2022 · $8k · revenue -1%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Plumas County Fire Safe Council Inc
Philanthropy
2
Plumas Corporation

Stream restoration

Unclassified
3
Friends of Plumas Wilderness

To study, explore, and maintain the integrity of natural ecosystems where the sierra and cascades meet.

Environment
4
Friends of Plumas County Animals

To enrich the lives of homeless animals in Plumas County through care, advocacy, spay/neuter programs, educational and outreach programs.

Animals
5
Plumas County Arts Commission

Missions statement: Plumas Arts cultivates communities in which arts & culture flourish." Goals : Cultivate showcases of arts & culture that enrich quality of life for the residents of, and visitors to, Plumas CountyEnhance & provide…

Arts & Culture
6
Plumas Strong

To enrich the lives of children, families, and businesses in Indian Valley and throughout Plumas County by providing support with programs that enhance community vitality.

Religion
7
Dawn Institute of Science & Art
Environment
8
Headwaters Basin Project

The project's mission is to reduce the risk of high-intensity, catastrophic wildfires and to maintain the old-growth forests, water supply, biological integrity, cultural resources, and ecological sustainability of public and private lands…

Environment
9
Yuba Watershed Institute

To promote the sustainable use of natural resources and the protection of long-term biological diversity in the Yuba River watershed.

Education
10
Pajaro Valley Healthcare District Project

The organization has been formed by the community and governmental leaders to raise funds to form a hospital district in the County of Santa Cruz, CA that will purchase and operate Watsonville Community Hospital from its current owner and…

Health
11
Lucies Project

Rescue, Care for and Adopt out unwanted dogs

Animals
12
Amador Fire Safe Council

Protect the people of amador county and their property from the effects of catastrophic fires through education, cooperation, innovation and action

Public Safety & Disaster
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Almanor Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Dixie Fire Canopy Project. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

9 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 9 of the 33 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
3/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PLUMAS SUN: $20,000 · OtherPLUMAS SUNIndividual grant recipient: $15,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientPLUMAS PERFORMING ARTS: $15,000 · OtherPLUMAS PERFORMING ARTSPlumas Community Radio kqny: $11,100 · OtherPlumas Community Radio kqnyINDIAN VALLEY FOOD PANTRY: $10,500 · OtherINDIAN VALLEY FOOD PANTRYCrescent Hotel: $10,000 · OtherCrescent HotelDawn Institute: $9,975 · OtherDawn InstituteIndividual grant recipient: $9,900 · OtherIndividual grant recipientGreenville Little League: $5,500 · Other+17 more: $44,500 · Other+17 moreIndian Valley Innovation Hub: $19,550 · Community ImprovementIndian Va…PLUMAS COMMUNITY RADIO A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION: $18,790 · Arts & CultureDIXIE FIRE CANOPY PROJECT: $14,000 · EnvironmentPLUMAS AUDUBON SOCIETY: $10,000 · Human ServicesPlumas Rural Services Inc: $3,000 · Human ServicesLOST SIERRA FOOD PROJECT: $12,000 · Food & NutritionSPOT: $8,000 · Animals
Other$151,475Community Improvement$19,550Arts & Culture$18,790Environment$14,000Human Services$13,000Food & Nutrition$12,000Animals$8,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPLUMAS COMMUNITY RADIO A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION: $18,790 over 2y, 20% of budgetDIXIE FIRE CANOPY PROJECT: $14,000 over 2y, 4.8% of budgetLOST SIERRA FOOD PROJECT: $12,000 over 2y, 4.9% of budgetPLUMAS AUDUBON SOCIETY: $10,000 over 1y, 5.7% of budgetSPOT: $8,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetPlumas Rural Services Inc: $3,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE ALMANOR FOUNDATION: $2,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetPLUMAS HEALTH CARE FOUNDATION: $1,500 over 1y, 1.1% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds Indian Valley Innovation Hub ↗
  • Who funds PLUMAS COMMUNITY RADIO A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds DIXIE FIRE CANOPY PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds LOST SIERRA FOOD PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds PLUMAS AUDUBON SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds SPOT ↗
  • Who funds Plumas Rural Services Inc ↗
  • Who funds THE ALMANOR FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds PLUMAS HEALTH CARE FOUNDATION ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

North Valley Community FoundationCA13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: North Valley Community Foundation · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Feather River Community Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Feather River Community Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Feather River Community Fund?

    Find your warmest path to Feather River Community Fund through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 33 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Feather River’s filings →

    More from the funding graph